[DoughtyOne]

One of my four children refused food and breast fed only for a full year. She also did not have teeth until after age one.

1. Breast pump, feeding the child from a device designed for that purpose
2. That same device can be used to deliver dietary suplements designed for young children
3. Some of those dietary supplements are very thin requiring no teeth for consumption
4. These dietary supplements stay in the stomach longer than mother's milk does, and can extend the period between feedings
5. A child provided this type of supplement just before leaving for an outing can sometimes go three hours, longer than the normal two hours between feeding sessions
6. A mother can simply keep herself covered as much as possible, and feed the child in public.

It’s also not our place to decide for other parents what, when and where their infant eats. It’s none of our business and it most certainly is none of the government’s business.

1. There are other people in public.
2. Just like any other issue when things take place in public, the other people at any given event also have rights.  They have a right not to be exposed to a potential "situation" that might cause them problems.  This is their business.
3. Once again, mother can simply keep herself covered as much as possible, and feed the child in public.

Older infants frequently do not like to be covered, because they want to see what is going on or wish to maintain eye contact with their mother. Breastfeeding is both food and a relationship.

1. Nobody I've seen has suggested an infant had to be covered.
2. Nobody suggested something needed to be done that would short circuit the mother/child bonding process.

The general public is just going to have to advert their eyes or leave the area. There is simply no way to write a law that wouldn’t be a gross imposition on the child’s natural right to eat.

1. The general public doesn't HAVE TO DO anything.  The general public has the reasoned expectation that other people in public will keep their privates covered.
2. Fathers are there with their kids too.  If you're saying fathers have no right to to be here to exercise their own bonding procees with their kids, I think you can see the absurdity in this suggestion.
3. Children need to eat.  They have no natural right to feed from a mother than can't keep herself under control, avoiding putting others at risk of being falsely charged with voyerism.

[Valpal1]

Children need to eat. They have no natural right to feed from a mother than can't keep herself under control, avoiding putting others at risk of being falsely charged with voyerism.

I think this argument completely fails. The child has a natural right to eat. You don't get to put constraints on natural rights, especially those that are basic to human existence, especially based on a speculative unrealized risk of harm to others

Straight up at all levels of law and logic, an unrealized harm that has not occurred, may not ever occur and has no well known history of occurring is not ever going to be a consideration when balancing freedoms and rights.

As for your suggestions regarding alternative feeding options. Yeah, they work for some infants, sometimes and in some situations. But not for all infants, all times or all situations. And you are also ignoring the basic principle that neither third parties or government get to dictate basic parenting activities to parents.

Also you can't cover a boob without the cloth getting in or over the face of the child. When people speak of "covering" they generally mean draping a blanket or burp cloth over the mother's shoulder down to the child's shoulder covering both the breast and the child's head. This is frequently done not for privacy but to reduce outside stimulation in order to relax and soothe the child to sleep. Older infants who have higher activity to sleep ratios often refuse coverage because they are only hungry, not hungry and tired.

In this specific story, the mom in question had a tank style suit with a slit she used for feeding. This is a perfect design because the straps remain in place on your shoulders and provide maximum coverage. This is why I question whether the claims of the employees are true or if they simply made stuff up because of their own discomfort.

This happens a lot, which is why most if not all states have laws protecting public breastfeeding. Simply put, an infant's comfort is more important than everyone else's. That standard is as old as the hills because babies are helpless and needy and adults aren't.

You can grouse about the situation until the cows come home, but it's not change it one iota. Which is why the pool staff is getting re-educated, they were wrong, they violated the law and created an unnecessary scene while inconveniencing a family unit due to their own ignorance and preconceived discomfort.